Hoffmann v. Pulido, et al.

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 20 Motion to Amend the Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/25/18. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

KASEY F. HOFFMANN,

10

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

v.

12

Case No. 1:18-cv-00078-LJO-BAM (PC)

L. PULIDO, et al,

13

(Doc. 20)
Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Kasey F. Hoffmann is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

16

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 12, 2018, the Court dismissed this

17

action, without prejudice, for the failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. (Docs. 13,

18

14.) On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. 15.)

19

On July 12, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred the matter back to this

20

Court for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for

21

the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). On July 17, 2018, this Court issued an order regarding that

22

limited referral. (Doc. 19.)

23

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, filed on

24

July 20, 2018. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff states that based on the referral by the Ninth Circuit Court of

25

Appeals, he seeks leave to amend his complaint.

26

As noted above, the referral was for the limited purpose of determining Plaintiff’s in

27

forma pauperis status on appeal, and has been addressed by this Court. Thus, the matter is no

28

longer referred to this Court. Furthermore, this Court has otherwise been divested of jurisdiction
1

1

over this matter. See Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 790 (9th Cir. 2018)

2

(“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction

3

on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case

4

involved in the appeal.”) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58

5

(1982)).

6
7
8
9

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, filed on July 20, 2018 (Doc. 20)
is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 25, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2